The semantics of 'Heh, heh!'

[occam]

In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".

Context:
"Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."

[source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]

The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
heh!" (x3 'heh!')

It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
'Heh!' when said out aloud.

* a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
question)

* a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").

* three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
derision.

The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to do
justice to this versatile word.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-11-28 09:54:45 +0000, occam said:

> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
> missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
>
> Context:
> "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
> Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
>
> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
>
> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
> heh!" (x3 'heh!')

OK, but my interest was stimulated by this:

'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together
in a time of crisis."'

I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need
the European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 28/11/2021 10:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

<snip>

> 'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
> Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
> a time of crisis."'
>
> I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
> European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?

The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
tackling border security... alone.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[occam]

Heh heh! Some issues cannot be solved alone, and the UK Government knew
this all along. Global warming, Interpol, cross-border financial
transactions, air traffic control, just to mention a few...

[spains...@gmail.com]

Cross-channel illegal migration is down by a half on pre-Brexit levels.
Hiding in lorries no longer works, so people are taking to the sea.

Both figures are negligible (in UK terms) compared with the number of
people who simply outstay their visas, and disappear into the UK "black
economy" - building trades, kitchen staff and so on.

Why don't the Polish let the Belarus refugees through? They aren't
interested in staying in Poland, so anyone offered (say) an entry if they
have a 1,000 Euro bus-ticket to Germany, could make it a win-win situation
for everyone.

Apart from the residents of Calais who have surely experienced enough.

[bruce bowser]

The whole idea of laughing and smiling has such different meanings, like in France compared to the United States.

[Ross Clark]

Once there lived a linguist who (it seems) had the same wonder:

Schenkein, James N. (1972): Towards an Analysis of Natural Conversation
and the Sense of Heheh. Semiotica 6: 344-377.

No, I haven't read it. There's a dusty old photocopy in one of my file
drawers. Doesn't look as though he comes up with a single brilliant
answer, but you might find his type of conversational analysis congenial.

[occam]

Thanks for the pointer Ross. I read the preview. The full .pdf costs
$64.64, so I will have to do without his conclusions. But I am chuffed
that a linguist thought of 'heheh' as a worthy topic of investigation
as far back as 1968.

[Peter T. Daniels]

A semiotician -- at least in this case, at any rate. The expression "class
of utterables" in the abstract suggests non-linguist-hood. Oh, and I
could buy it for $42. (Or I could go through the university library for
free, but I don't want to.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

<nob...@nowhere.nix> probably won't work, but if you send me an address
that does work (check my home page) I'll send it to you.

[occam]

Thank you for the offer, Athel, I appreciate it. I have in the meantime
called in a favour from an ex-colleague who is still plugged into the
system. I'm looking forward to seeing the full publication.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 2:08:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 28/11/2021 10:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
> > Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
> > a time of crisis."'
> >
> > I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
> > European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?
> The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
> borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
> tackling border security... alone.
>

I thought you folks ruled the waves.

bill

[Janet]

No change there. Last time we needed to defend our borders, it was
without assistance from Europe.

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Let ne guess: 1982? When you defended your occupation of some
fairly bleak islands in the South Atlantic that at one time, when you
"ruled the waves," were of significance to the Navy? That's a ratjer
generous interpretation of "our borders," though.

What happened just yesterday in Barbados, with the full connivance
of the likely next King, was most interesting.

[Paul Wolff]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, at 23:12:57, bil...@shaw.ca posted:

These days, to the contrary, it's only the prime minister attempting to
waive the rules (one more time).
--
Paul

[J. J. Lodder]

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 28/11/2021 10:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > 'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
> > Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
> > a time of crisis."'
> >
> > I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
> > European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?
>
> The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
> borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
> tackling border security... alone.

But they do.
Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,

Jan


[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
If you search on that you will find the reasons
for why the French have serious discussions internally
about scrapping that agreement altogether.
The brilliant intervention of your Boris have been quite succesful:
it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.

[Paul Wolff]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021, at 21:38:44, J. J. Lodder posted:

>Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 10:02, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> > 'Ms Patel said: "The UK cannot tackle this issue alone, and across
>> > Europe we all need to step up, take responsibility, and work together in
>> > a time of crisis."'
>> >
>> > I thought that the whole point of Brexit was that the UK didn't need the
>> > European Union to tackle any issue, so what is the problem?
>>
>> The problem is that the UK government has no idea how to defend our
>> borders. We as a nation are going to have to re-discover the art of
>> tackling border security... alone.
>
>But they do.
>Their idea is to pay the French for doing it for them,
>and then to antagonise the French as much as possible.
>Next step is of course to whine [1] about the results,
>

>[1] This is about the Le Touquet agreement (or treaty).
>If you search on that you will find the reasons
>for why the French have serious discussions internally
>about scrapping that agreement altogether.
>The brilliant intervention of your Boris have been quite succesful:
>it got your Ms Patel disinvited from the talks about the problem.
>

That was a good move. It was obvious that you EU members needed to sort
yourselves out first before you could put a coherent position to your
neighbour across the waterway. Having the ghastly Patel in the room
while you tried to do that would have made it impossible.

We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home. Instead, you
hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
that wise?
--
Paul

[occam]

On 01/12/2021 16:52, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, at 23:12:57, bil...@shaw.ca posted:


>>>

>> I thought you folks ruled the waves.
>>
> These days, to the contrary, it's only the prime minister attempting to
> waive the rules (one more time).

<smile>

[J. J. Lodder]

There were no 'you EU members' involved, until now.
The problem so far was that the French thought
that they could go their einzelgang,
or whatever they call it.

> We in Britain don't really understand why you don't talk to your refugee
> population and tell them to either claim asylum or go home.

Yes, and why don't 'you Brits' do the same
with your (much smaller) refugee population?

> Instead, you
> hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
> that wise?

Where else should they camp?
You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
I assume?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

You Brits greatly enjoyed the experience, it would seem.
Hence your hard-fought campaign to 'take back control'.
It was a great success, so go ahead, and do control,
without asking those Frenchies to do it for you,

Jan

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 10:47:34, J. J. Lodder posted:

All right, you can't answer my point. No wonder we are frustrated with
you guys.

>
>> Instead, you
>> hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
>> that wise?
>
>Where else should they camp?

That's a classic case of begging the question. Why should they have to
camp at all, in a civilised country?

>You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>I assume?

That is a dishonourable remark. Which century are you still living in?

Today's issue is this: the EU, but particularly France, isn't looking
after those people - who we used to call DPs, or displaced persons, in
the aftermath of WWII. And while France is the main problem for Britain,
it becomes an EU problem because you lack internal borders. Which is why
I said it was sensible to keep la Patel out of it while you talked among
yourselves for a while, to try some clear thinking without hostilities.

--
Paul

[J. J. Lodder]

Don't you understand that this is rather mutual?
The permanent British hostility towards the EU
and their failure to keep any agreement at all
does have effects.

> >> Instead, you
> >> hope they will go away, and meanwhile let them camp on the beaches. Is
> >> that wise?
> >
> >Where else should they camp?
>
> That's a classic case of begging the question. Why should they have to
> camp at all, in a civilised country?

You think that forcing them to go 'underground' as illegals,
and using them as cheap labour, (as in Britain) is more civilised?

> >You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
> >I assume?
>
> That is a dishonourable remark.

Not my invention. Just an example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities>
You were effectively proposing that France should do something similar.
Without walls and barbed wire they won't stay in the Auvergne,
or wherever you might want them to stay,
because that is not where they want to be.

>Which century are you still living in?

Not the 19th, when the British invented such facilities.
But summarising: you have no answers either.

> Today's issue is this: the EU, but particularly France, isn't looking
> after those people - who we used to call DPs, or displaced persons, in
> the aftermath of WWII. And while France is the main problem for Britain,
> it becomes an EU problem because you lack internal borders.

You are trying to redefine your British problem as an EU problem.
Whatever the internal borders, it isn't an EU problem
because the EU is not where they want to be.
The real problem is that Britain is unwilling
to take a reasonable share of those 'displaced persons'.

> Which is why I said it was sensible to keep la Patel out of it while you
> talked among yourselves for a while, to try some clear thinking without
> hostilities.

There you go again:
you are trying to redefine your problem away as somebody elses problem,
while blaming them for a lack of good sense
for failing to agree with your position.
Why should the EU listen at all to this kind of argument?

As for the hostilities: this round was started by your Boris.
He is angering the French to a point where they may
put an end to the Le Touquet agreement. (see above)

What is Britain going to do when the French say something like:
you keep your money, we are no longer going to be
border guard and bully for you.

Jan

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 16:11:37, J. J. Lodder posted:

Let us say no more on this subject here in a.u.e.
--
Paul

[Lewis]

In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Where else should they camp?
> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
> I assume?

Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

--
I joined the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-12-02 17:32:59 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Where else should they camp?
>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>> I assume?
>
> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
as part of his contrarian persona.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 02/12/2021 18:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-12-02 17:32:59 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
>> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Where else should they camp?
>>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>>> I assume?
>>
>> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
>> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>
> Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison, yes,
> but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that as part
> of his contrarian persona.

It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you, Athel.
Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in Lewis's
baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise. I am,
sir, a trifle disappointed in you.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-12-02, Lewis wrote:

> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Where else should they camp?
>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>> I assume?
>
> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.

I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.


--
XML combines the efficiency of text files with the readability of
binary files.

[J. J. Lodder]

That's no doubt best. We are not going to agree.
Least of all on hypothetical consequences
of hypothetical courses of action.

BTW, I am not a party in any of those Anglo/French disputes.
Merely a bystander who looks on with some amazement
at what is happening,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder:

> > Where else should they camp?
> > You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
> > I assume?
>
> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer?

Certainly not, as far as I can see.

> If so, he is surely in favor of concentration camps
> as long as they are not called that.

I doubt that very much,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-12-02 18:32:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:

> On 02/12/2021 18:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2021-12-02 17:32:59 +0000, Lewis said:
>>
>>> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
>>> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>> Where else should they camp?
>>>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>>>> I assume?
>>>
>>> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
>>> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>>
>> Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
>> yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
>> as part of his contrarian persona.
>
> It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
> views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
> laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you, Athel.
> Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in Lewis's
> baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise. I am,
> sir, a trifle disappointed in you.

Sorry to disappoint you, even a trifle. I just point out that I didn't
call anyone a fascist.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 02/12/2021 19:19, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-12-02 18:32:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:
>
>> On 02/12/2021 18:00, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-02 17:32:59 +0000, Lewis said:
>>>
>>>> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
>>>> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Where else should they camp?
>>>>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>>>>> I assume?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in
>>>> favor of
>>>> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>>>
>>> Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
>>> yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
>>> as part of his contrarian persona.
>>
>> It's intellectually lazy to dismiss as fascists people whose political
>> views differ from one's own. From those I've killfiled intellectual
>> laziness does not surprise me; but it does surprise me from you,
>> Athel. Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber; to join in
>> Lewis's baying is something above which I'd have expected you to rise.
>> I am, sir, a trifle disappointed in you.
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, even a trifle.

Un petit soupçon, is all.

> I just point out that I didn't
> call anyone a fascist.

Indeed you did not. If it was not your intent for "I wasn't conscious of
that before this thread" to read as implicit agreement with Lewis's
wayward labelling, I may have read too much into your words, and will
willingly retract and apologise.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:33:03 AM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Where else should they camp?
> > You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
> > I assume?

> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer?

...

Of course not. I don't agree with all his political opinions (on questions
that I know anything about, unlike this one), but he's obviously not a
fascist.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 20:16:16, J. J. Lodder posted:

Well, well. Thank you for speaking up, Sir.

--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 12:22:09, Jerry Friedman posted:

Thank you, Jerry.

Sometimes I will give a point of view for a reason relevant to the
debate, without its being my own political opinion. Just saying.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 19:00:13, Adam Funk posted:

>On 2021-12-02, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
>><nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Where else should they camp?
>>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>>> I assume?
>>
>> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
>> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>
>I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.
>

This is hard to answer simply.

I am absolutely not a Brexiteer, absolutely not a fascist. Where on
earth did Lewis pick that idea up from? I am international by family,
liberal if not libertarian by inclination, a seeker after truth, an
opponent of humbug.

I lost many of my family to murder both in concentration camps and
outside them, so let's get that one out of the way right now.

My debate with Jan was in part a response to his piling blame on Britain
over the refugee issues that beset us all. I wanted to challenge him on
that, despite our appalling political representatives. And I acknowledge
that it is in the nature of man to prefer his own ancestral social order
over that of others who appear to want to move in and change it - which
is a large part of the immigration problem.
--
Paul

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 19:00:13 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2021-12-02, Lewis wrote:
>
>> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Where else should they camp?
>>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>>> I assume?
>>
>> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
>> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>
>I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.

That statement can be taken two ways: Wolff is not a rah-rah fascist
Brexiteer, or Wolff is not a fascist Brexiteer. I prefer to agree
with the latter.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2021-12-02 17:32:59 +0000, Lewis said:
>
> > In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
> > <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >> Where else should they camp?
> >> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
> >> I assume?
> >
> > Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
> > concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>
> Curiously, I wasn't conscious of that before this thread. 'Arrison,
> yes, but what can you expect? Richard Heathfield, yes, but I see that
> as part of his contrarian persona.

Fact checking: searching last years archives of aue on 'fascist'
I find that only Lewis uses the word 'fascist' to refer to others.
(others turn up in the search, but only in quoted text)

To my surprise I found myself in that search,
but on looking I find that I had used 'anti-fascist'
as a description of some organisation,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

I tried to make you see that the consequences of what you would want
are not what you would want.
You blame the French for allowing 'them'
to sleep in tents near the coast. (and not offering them housing)
But the French have also done just that,
with the result that 'they' didn't stay there.
(because that is not where they want to be)

The only way to keep 'them' away from near the coast
is to drag them off to some area with guards and barbed wire around it,
and to prevent them by force from leaving the place for another try.

We have already agreed not to argue about the words that may be used
to describe such a place,

Jan

[occam]

On 02/12/2021 18:32, Lewis wrote:
> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Where else should they camp?
>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>> I assume?
>
> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>

Eh? Not Paul. I don't know where you got that notion. It could not be
further from the truth.

[Sam Plusnet]

Sometimes, the target acquisition skills on display remind me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyoSLOlglw

--
Sam Plusnet

[Lewis]

In message <16GwUfam...@wolff.co.uk> Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021, at 19:00:13, Adam Funk posted:
>>On 2021-12-02, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <1pjk0oz.z5...@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder
>>><nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>>> Where else should they camp?
>>>> You don't propose to 'concentrate' them somewhere,
>>>> I assume?
>>>
>>> Isn't Wolff a rah-rah fascist Brexiteer? If so, he is surely in favor of
>>> concentration camps as long as they are not called that.
>>
>>I certainly didn't think so -- I assume he's being satirical.
>>
> This is hard to answer simply.

> I am absolutely not a Brexiteer, absolutely not a fascist. Where on
> earth did Lewis pick that idea up from? I am international by family,
> liberal if not libertarian by inclination, a seeker after truth, an
> opponent of humbug.

I must have confused you with someone else.

--
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I said too much. I was surprised by Paul's brexitude, which I hadn't realized. I should have disowned the "rah-rah fascist" part.

I agree that "Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber". He and I go back a long way, as we took the same course in the same university at more or less the same time.

[occam]

You should also disown his being a brexiteer. That post by Lewis is, as
usual, unsubstantiated guff typical of the man.

>
>
> I agree that "Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber".

Amen to that.

[Richard Heathfield]

[I have no idea why Athel's reply has not appeared on my feed, so I am
glad to be able to piggy-back onto occam's follow-up.]

A very gracious withdrawal. You may consider yourself unsoupçonned.

> I was surprised by Paul's brexitude, which I hadn't
>> realized.

I'm given to understand that Paul's brexitude is a figbox of Lewis's
somewhat puerile imagination.

>> I should have disowned the "rah-rah fascist" part.

Indeed. We might also consider that it is perfectly possible not to wish
to be part of an overseas economic and political union without actually
being a fascist. Otherwise one labels 17+ million ordinary British
voters as fascists, and the word loses all meaning. It's the kind of
nonsense dreamed up by the kind of people who belong in a thinking man's
killfile.

> You should also disown his being a brexiteer. That post by Lewis is, as
> usual, unsubstantiated guff typical of the man.

Quite so.

>> I agree that "Paul Wolff is a polite and intelligent subscriber".
>
> Amen to that.

It's always good to end on a positive note. E above middle C, for
example (with just a touch of vibrato).

[Paul Wolff]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, at 10:08:44, Richard Heathfield posted:

>
>It's always good to end on a positive note. E above middle C, for
>example (with just a touch of vibrato).
>

I like the buzz.
--
Paul

[Tak To]

On 11/28/2021 4:54 AM, occam wrote:
> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
> missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh, Britain!".
>
> Context:
> "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row between Boris
> Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
>
> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
>
> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh, heh,
> heh!" (x3 'heh!')

I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on
the radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of
different chuckling sounds.

Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic
then anything else. E.g., "tsk".

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Peter Moylan]

On 07/12/21 04:10, Tak To wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 4:54 AM, occam wrote:
>> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
>> was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
>> Britain!".
>>
>> Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
>> between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
>>
>> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
>>
>> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
>> heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')
>
> I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
> radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
> chuckling sounds.
>
> Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
> anything else. E.g., "tsk".

For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Quinn C]

* Peter Moylan:

... but not "tut" exactly as written. I wouldn't have been able to guess
either.

> probably in AUE.

Some people also say "tisk! tisk!"

--
George: You don't know these people. They find emotions disgusting.
They just want to have a good time and make jokes.
Mae: Oh, so they're British?
-- Feel Good

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 5:23:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/12/21 04:10, Tak To wrote:
> > On 11/28/2021 4:54 AM, occam wrote:

> >> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
> >> was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
> >> Britain!".
> >> Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
> >> between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
> >> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
> >> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
> >> heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')
> > I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
> > radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
> > chuckling sounds.

Presumably the Beavis & Butthead noise.

> > Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
> > anything else. E.g., "tsk".
>
> For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
> found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.

Likewise. I had no idea that the old ladies in English novels who were
always tut-tutting were actually saying "tsk, tsk."

[Tak To]

On 12/7/2021 9:26 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 5:23:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 07/12/21 04:10, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2021 4:54 AM, occam wrote:
>
>>>> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
>>>> was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
>>>> Britain!".
>>>> Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
>>>> between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
>>>> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
>>>> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
>>>> heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')
>>> I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
>>> radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
>>> chuckling sounds.
>
> Presumably the Beavis & Butthead noise.

My point was that there are different chuckles (chortles,
sniggers, crackles, giggles, tee-hee's, ...) from the *same
person* that signify varying degrees of amusement and/or
disapproval. From the written description, I cannot tell
what the speaker's intention was.

<ot>
I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.
I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
hideously drawn cartoon characters.
</ot>

>>> Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
>>> anything else. E.g., "tsk".
>>
>> For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
>> found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.
>
> Likewise. I had no idea that the old ladies in English novels who were
> always tut-tutting were actually saying "tsk, tsk."

While I am at it, I might as well as for audio sample of a
"tee-hee".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 11:52:41 AM UTC-5, Tak To wrote:
> On 12/7/2021 9:26 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 5:23:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 07/12/21 04:10, Tak To wrote:
> >>> On 11/28/2021 4:54 AM, occam wrote:

> >>>> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who
> >>>> was missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
> >>>> Britain!".
> >>>> Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
> >>>> between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."
> >>>> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]
> >>>> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
> >>>> heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')
> >>> I am not sure I know what the journalist's "heh" sounds like on the
> >>> radio. Is there a recording? There are really a lot of different
> >>> chuckling sounds.
> > Presumably the Beavis & Butthead noise.
>
> My point was that there are different chuckles (chortles,
> sniggers, crackles, giggles, tee-hee's, ...) from the *same
> person* that signify varying degrees of amusement and/or
> disapproval. From the written description, I cannot tell
> what the speaker's intention was.
>
> <ot>
>
> I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.

I have never seen a single episode. It was on cable, and I wasn't
about to pay for a box of DVDs without knowing what I was in for.

Clips of one of them going "heh-heh-heh," presumably a snigger,
were ubiquitous.

[Cf., e.g., *Dexter*. CBS broadcast (expurgated) the first season,
and that showed me I'd like the DVDs. Followed the whole series
as they came out. (The reboot looks a bit iffy.)]

> I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
> hideously drawn cartoon characters.
> </ot>
>
> >>> Transcription of onomatopoeia is a lot of times more idiomatic then
> >>> anything else. E.g., "tsk".
> >> For years I read "tsk" precisely as written. I can't remember how I
> >> found out that it was the same as "tut"; probably in AUE.
> > Likewise. I had no idea that the old ladies in English novels who were
> > always tut-tutting were actually saying "tsk, tsk."
>
> While I am at it, I might as well as for audio sample of a
> "tee-hee".

The paradigm case would be what the "Three little maids from school
are we," from Mikado, do at the end of each stanza -- one or two hands
over mouth, ladylike, high-pitched giggle. (On the classic Martyn Green
recording. I don't know any of the more recent ones, in part because they
include all the spoken dialogue.)

[lar3ryca]

Now you have me wondering if 'tsk' and 'tut' are actually identical.
I pronounce (well, make the sound) of 'tsk' by placing my tongue on the
front of my palate, just aft of my incisors, creating a vacuum in my
mouth, then pulling my tongue away from the palate.

When I have read the word 'tut', I have always pronounced it as written,
with a short 'u'.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It is possible that some people use "tsk" as representing the same sound
as "tut" and vice versa.
However to me, "tsk" and "tut" represent completely different sounds.
"tsk" is a click and "tut" is tit, tat or tot with a u vowel sound
instead of i, a or o.

As says the OED:

tsk, int.

Etymology: Alveolar click formed by suction: compare tchick n.,
tck int.


tut, int. (and n.3)

Pronunciation:
Brit. /t?t/, U.S. /t?t/
Forms: Also 1500s tutt, tutte, 1800s Scottish tuts. ß. 1800s
Scottish toot, tout; toots.

Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck int.).

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter T. Daniels]

"Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the click,
then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click" is a different
sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE it's used for addressing
horses; I don't read horse literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)

The alleged pronunciations not visible above are spelling-pronunciations.

[lar3ryca]

Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at the front of
the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the sound come from behind
my incisors. But the sound I use for addressing horses is made by pulling
back one side of my mouth, pressing the rear of my tongue against my
soft palate, creating a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then
comes from behind my molars

Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

[Peter T. Daniels]

The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard palate, behind
the incisors, is the alveolar ridge

You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the palate,
what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call "retroflex."

[CDB]

On 12/8/2021 3:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> lar3...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> PeterWD wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

[Quinn C]

* CDB:

The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

--
But I have never chosen my human environment. I have always
borrowed it from someone like you or Monk or Doris.
-- Jane Rule, This Is Not For You, p.152

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 07-12-2021 kl. 17:52 skrev Tak To:
> <ot>
> I am very surprised that you have watched Beavis & Butthead.
> I have never watched it myself. I have an aversion of
> hideously drawn cartoon characters.
> </ot>

OnTopic: My non-native ear finds "of" an odd choice of preposition.
I'd have said "aversion to" or possibly "aversion against".

Comments?

/Anders, Denmark

[Richard Heathfield]

++to;

[Peter T. Daniels]

TT isn't a native speaker. That shows up very occasionally in his writing.

("to," not "against"; put them with "averse")

[Lewis]

"aversion of" has a certain clang to it, yes. "Aversion to" is what I
would use.



--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain. But the real trick will be getting Demi Moore out
of the creamed corn!"

[Sam Plusnet]

On 09-Dec-21 14:03, CDB wrote:
>
> Some others call it a "cluck".  I believe Xhosaphones call it "x" or "xh".

I was skimming through this thread & thought:

"Xhosaphones... Don't think I've heard of him before.
Athenian?"


--
Sam Plusnet

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, at 20:38:54, Sam Plusnet posted:

Depends - which are o-megas, and which are ommi-crons?

You may give a Laconic answer.
--
Paul

[Quinn C]

* Sam Plusnet:

Depends ... is Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth) the "Athens of the South"?

--
... she didn't exactly approve of the military. She didn't
exactly disapprove, either; she just made it plain that she
thought there were better things for intelligent human beings
to do with their lives. -- L. McMaster Bujold, Memory

[CDB]

On 12/9/2021 9:18 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:

>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> lar3...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> PeterWD wrote:

[A glossina morsitans bit Rich Aunt Betsy;
Tsk, tsk, tsetse -- O. Nash]

>>>>>> Etymology: A natural utterance; the spelling tut sometimes
>>>>>> represents the palatal click (also spelt tchick n., tck
>>>>>> int.).
>>>>> "Sometimes"? If that's not the conventional spelling for the
>>>>> click, then how do you spell the click? (The "palatal click"
>>>>> is a different sound from the alveolar click <tsk> -- in AmE
>>>>> it's used for addressing horses; I don't read horse
>>>>> literature so I haven't seen <tchick> or <tck>.)
>>>> Now you have me wondering. I make what I consider a tsk, at
>>>> the front of the palate (the hard palate, I think), making the
>>>> sound come from behind my incisors. But the sound I use for
>>>> addressing horses is made by pulling back one side of my mouth,
>>>> pressing the rear of my tongue against my soft palate, creating
>>>> a vacuum, then releasing the tongue. The sound then comes from
>>>> behind my molars

>>>> Which is alveolar and which is palatal?

>>> The first one you describe is alveolar. The front of the hard
>>> palate, behind the incisors, is the alveolar ridge

>>> You address your horses laterally. I do it farther back, on the
>>> palate, what Indian philology called "cerebral" and others call
>>> "retroflex."

>> Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x"
>> or "xh".

> The usual "tsk" is c in Xhosa. The x is a lateral click.

Yes, I was talking about the lateral click you make to encourage a horse
to move.

[CDB]

On 12/9/2021 3:38 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> CDB wrote:

>> Some others call it a "cluck". I believe Xhosaphones call it "x"
>> or "xh".

> I was skimming through this thread & thought:

> "Xhosaphones... Don't think I've heard of him before. Athenian?"

A Hittite refugee, remembered for training his pet chicken to wake him
up gently, and for his dictum "Troy it, you'll like it".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

In Stellenbosch once my host's daughter demonstrated three Xhosa
clicks. I suppose with a lot of effort I could reproduce them in
isolation, but sticking any of them in a regular sentence would be
another matter.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yet they proved surprisingly easy to borrow. The three Xhosa clicks
came into the language with words borrowed from "Khoisan"" (which
is no longer considered to be a legitimate genetic grouping; there are
simply two families that have click phonemes), but the source language
didn't have any other detectible influence on the Bantu languages that
got clicks (Xhosa, Zulu, and several others whose names are less familiar).

[Snidely]

On Friday or thereabouts, CDB declared ...

I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not the
side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse wave.
The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Snidely]

Snidely explained on 12/10/2021 :

/dps "kiss for the walk, cluck for the trot"

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[CDB]

On 11/28/2021 4:54 AM, occam wrote:

> In a BBC radio report this morning the journalist, when asked who was
> missing from the conference table, responded "Heh, heh, heh,
> Britain!".

> Context: "Ms Patel was disinvited from the summit after a row
> between Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron."

> [source: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59448398>]

> The current story aside, my interest is more in the chuckle "Heh,
> heh, heh!" (x3 'heh!')

> It strikes me that there is a lot of expressive power in the simple
> 'Heh!' when said out aloud.

> * a single 'He!' sounds like a surprise reaction (to an unexpected
> question)

Hey!

> * a double 'He, he' is more of a recognition of a truth which is
> scornful, at least to the respondent (cf. "I know, right?").

Not sure about the scornfulness. Heah, heah!

> * three (or more) 'Heh!'s seems closer to real laughter, rather than
> derision.

Chimpanzees reportedly say (or "go")"heh, heh, heh!" if you tickle them.

> The few dictionary definitions of 'Heh!' I looked up do not seem to
> do justice to this versatile word.

If it's even a word.

[CDB]

On 12/10/2021 4:46 PM, Snidely wrote:
> CDB declared ...

Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
"The Click Song".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
(or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.

Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
West Africa.

I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

Well, that can be remedied.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6WO5XabD-s>

Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Several more examples are listed below it (incl. Makeba's song).
Including a couple of instructional videos for Zulu or Xhosa.

His clicks are more prominent than they are in Zulu -- his language
isn't identified, so we can't check whether it's one of the ones that
has three or four different articulations for each one (voiced, nasalized,
aspirated, plain).

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:08:43 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:24:38 AM UTC-5, CDB wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2021 4:46 PM, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth, not
>>>>> the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of the pulse
>>>>> wave. The trainer is training me as much as training the horse.
>>>>
>>>> Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came upon
>>>> that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's performance of
>>>> "The Click Song".
>>>
>>> Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken Zulu
>>> (or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.
>>>
>>> Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
>>> West Africa.
>>>
>>> I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan" languages.
>> Well, that can be remedied.
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6WO5XabD-s>
>>
>> Not as easy to find as I expected, though.
>
> Several more examples are listed below it (incl. Makeba's song).
> Including a couple of instructional videos for Zulu or Xhosa.

Yes, Zulu ans Xhosa are easy to find. But to find the original click
langauges, I had to search for "Khoisan" or "Bushman", and the language
is not further identified. Here's another like that:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA4aV-tTLpQ>

These are identified as "San", but that's probably still underspecified.

<https://youtu.be/VFxe0I-a6lU?t=100>

This language is given as "Tjwao", but the clicks in this speaker aren't
clear to me, probably due to her age.

<https://youtu.be/OhKU9nDRQhE>

[Peter T. Daniels]

Khoi were "Bushman," San was "Hottentot."

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA4aV-tTLpQ>
>
> These are identified as "San", but that's probably still underspecified.

Many fewer San languages survive than Khoi ones. Several hae standard
Roman orthographies. Khoekhoe is a language of primary education in
Namibia.

> <https://youtu.be/VFxe0I-a6lU?t=100>
>
> This language is given as "Tjwao", but the clicks in this speaker aren't
> clear to me, probably due to her age.

As clear to me as in the other folks in the vid; some co-articulations
are even clearly perceptible.

> <https://youtu.be/OhKU9nDRQhE>

[Snidely]

CDB scribbled something on Saturday the 12/11/2021:

There's some fluttering.

/dps

--
We’ve learned way more than we wanted to know about the early history
of American professional basketball, like that you could have once
watched a game between teams named the Indianapolis Kautskys and the
Akron Firestone Non-Skids. -- fivethirtyeight.com

[CDB]

On 12/11/2021 9:45 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

I've heard brief examples of San (!Kung, IIRC) speech in documentaries.
There were clicks, but I don't recall how pronounced they were.

[CDB]

On 12/11/2021 12:08 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:

>> CDB wrote:
>>> Snidely wrote:

>>>> I've been encouraged to make the click at the back of my mouth,
>>>> not the side. The result is a lower frequency for the core of
>>>> the pulse wave. The trainer is training me as much as training
>>>> the horse.

>>> Does your adam's apple move sharply down when you make it? I came
>>> upon that one as a teenager, trying to imitate Miriam Makeba's
>>> performance of "The Click Song".

>> Note that the clicks in her song are highly exaggerated. In spoken
>> Zulu (or Xhosa or whatever) they're barely noticeable.

>> Likewise the implosives and ejectives in languages of Ethiopia and
>> West Africa.

>> I've never heard any spoken Khoi, San, or "Nilo-Saharan"
>> languages.

> Well, that can be remedied.

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6WO5XabD-s>

> Not as easy to find as I expected, though.

Well, those were certainly pronounced.